Creative commons has several licences. The non-committal ones are not Free or Open-Source licences.
– ctrl-alt-delorApr 9 '17 at 12:38

I’m not sure I understand. You don’t want to license only the content, but also the code (HTML, CSS, JS), correct? And both parts (code and content) should not be allowed to be used commercially? So your question is whether you can use e.g. CC BY-NC for the whole thing, although part of it is JavaScript?
– unorApr 9 '17 at 17:23

@richard I am aware of that, but I think whether or not I want commercial use to be allowed isn't relevant to the question.
– jasonszhaoApr 9 '17 at 18:32

non-commercial are problematic for the user: I would therefore make it share-alike, or no derivatives (but have to pass on same rights). If you do this then any one selling a copy, must include the licence, and make it clear what the users rights are. Therefore they can not exploit you are the user. Though they can make some money from it.
– ctrl-alt-delorApr 10 '17 at 9:07

1 Answer
1

Assuming all the content is your original creation, I think it would be very appropriate. If you want to encourage its reuse, giving a single link that automatically tar/zips up the entire site for download would be helpful. IANAL/IANYL, of course.

May you provide reasoning or evidence of why?
– jasonszhaoApr 9 '17 at 7:34

I would, but you've already done it (which is why I upvoted the question). Code licenses, such as the GPL, are inappropriate for anything except the JS, which you concede is de minimis. CC is designed for content rather than code, and one version permits for a restriction on commercial reuse, which you want. It seemed to me that you'd already done the research and just wanted a few eyeballs to confirm your conclusion, which I am happy to do because I concur. Of course, others may disagree, so I'd wait a while before accepting any answer, if I were you.
– MadHatterApr 9 '17 at 7:40